The Yugoslav Revisionist Leaders — Dangerous Enemies of the International Communist and Workers’ Movement

Article published in the newspaperZeri i Popullit
January 17, 1962
The "Naim Frasheri” State Publishing Enterprise
Tirana 1964

Khrushchev, for example, not only “forgot” the Statement and its
stipulation concerning the need to further unmask the Yugoslav
revisionists, but they also openly rejected it, adopting a new course
in opposition to it, the course of rapprochement, reconciliation and
cooperation with the Yugoslav revisionist leaders.

Perhaps the Yugoslav revisionists have changed their revisionist
attitude and viewpoint since the Moscow Statement of 1960 was adopted?
Perhaps they have suspended their undermining and splitting activities
against the camp of socialism, against the unity of the communist and
workers’ movement, and returned to the positions of Marxism-Leninism?
No, this truth remains unchanged: the Yugoslav revisionists are the
same renegades from Marxism-Leninism, and retainers of imperialism and
the reactionary bourgeoisie, whom they have served and are serving with
zeal and faithfulness; they have changed only the forms and ways, the
paths and methods according to given situations.

If we glance at events in 1961, we shall see that with each passing day
the Yugoslav revisionists have sunk deeper in their hostile activities
against the forces of socialism and peace, to the advantage of the
forces of imperialism and reaction.

During the year 1961, as before, the press and propaganda of the
Yugoslav revisionists were full of slogans about the integration of
capitalism into socialism and about the radical changes which
imperialism and capitalism of the present day have allegedly undergone,
contending that they are no longer exploiters, nor aggressors, nor the
source of war. The danger of war, according to the revisionists, comes
no longer from imperialism, but from the socialist states, such as
China and Albania. As a result of their revisionist attitude in the
service of U.S. imperialism, the struggles between the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism, between the enslaved
peoples and the colonialist oppressors, between the forces of democracy
and those of reaction, and between the forces for peace and those for
war, have all disappeared from the press and propaganda of the Yugoslav
leaders.

The Yugoslav revisionists continue to spread their anti-Marxist
viewpoints about important questions in present-day world development
and in the communist and workers’ movement. One of such questions is
that of peaceful coexistence which they propagandize as a policy of
reconciliation with the imperialists, for the sake of which we must
renounce all class struggle; they propagandize it as coexistence
between the oppressed and the oppressors, between slaves and
colonialists, and between classes in the capitalist countries. Another
question is Marxist-Leninist teachings about the socialist revolution
and the proletarian dictatorship which they reject as obsolete on the
grounds that today the capitalist state is losing its class character
and is becoming a state of the whole people, which serves bourgeoisie
and proletariat alike.

The Yugoslav revisionists deny the fundamental laws of the building of
socialism and the universal experience of the Soviet Union, and
continue to preach their own specific socialism. For example, Tito
tried to spread Yugoslav’s specific road to socialism, in his interview
with the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimboon on October 23, 1961, saying
that there exist “almost as many roads to socialism as there are states
and that every state will build socialism in a different way, in its
own specific way”. It is easy to see the danger of this preaching
presents to other countries and it is also easy to see whose interests
and what classes the Yugoslav type of socialism serves.

Pursuing a policy of sabotage and conspiracy, the Yugoslav revisionist
leaders continued to carry out their tasks during 1961 as loyal members
of the Balkan military bloc, which nourishes aggressive aims against
the socialist countries and which is linked with the NATO and CENTO
blocs. The coordinated participation of the Yugoslav revisionists and
their Greek and American allies in subversive activity against the
socialist countries was shown by concrete evidence at the trial held in
Tirana against a plot hatched by the ruling circles of Belgrade and
Athens, in collaboration with some Albanian traitors and the
Mediterranean U.S. 6th Fleet. As documented by the people’s justice,
the plotters intended to liquidate the freedom, independence and
sovereignty of our country; they intended to liquidate the People’s
Republic of Albania.

Pursuing their policy of supporting U.S. imperialism and cushioning and
masking its aggressive and belligerent activity, the Yugoslav
revisionists went to such lengths that at the conference of the
non-aligned countries held in Belgrade in September 1961 they put both
the aggressive NATO bloc and the Warsaw Treaty, both the bourgeois and
socialist policy and ideology on the same plane, and considered them as
equally dangerous to peace and the security of the peoples. To curry
favour with the imperialists, Tito openly attacked the Soviet Union for
its just decision on the resumption of nuclear weapon tests, a decision
aimed at strengthening its own defensive might as well as that of the
whole camp of socialism, and at curbing the aggressors and defending
peace. Tito termed the Soviet Government’s decision as “something which
has alarmed the whole world on a very broad scale”. Proceeding further,
he placed the Mutual-Aid Economic Council in the same category with the
“Common Market” of the capitalist countries which serve to strengthen
aggressive alliances, and considered them equally as “serious
obstacles” to close economic cooperation.

The attitude of the Yugoslav revisionist leaders towards many events in
1961 once more shows that they, under the mask of an extra-bloc policy,
are feverishly carrying on their hostile activity against the socialist
camp, the international communist and workers’ movement and the unity
of the peace-loving forces. The role which U.S. imperialism has
assigned to the Yugoslav revisionist leadership was well defined by
Tito himself as early as in 1956, when he stated in his Pula speech,
“Yugoslavia must not withdraw into herself. She must work in every
direction ... in the ideological field, so that the new spirit may
triumph.”

Through their press and propaganda, the Yugoslav revisionists have
sought to discredit the life and work of the peoples of the socialist
countries, attacking in fact the very socialist system of these
countries. For example, during November and December 1961 the official
Yugoslav news agency Tan jug published a series of provocative
dispatches written by its special correspondents about the socialist
countries. What do the Yugoslav correspondents deal with? How do they
describe life and work in the socialist countries? According to them,
deceivers and falsifiers have a free hand in the socialist countries,
and dictators, bureaucrats, robbers, speculators, the little kings of
dogmatism and ruthless oppressors hold sway there. Dogmatism reigns in
art and literature, in science and culture, and freedom and personality
are smothered. It is sufficient to mention only a few of these stories
and the way in which the issues are raised to understand their aim in
discrediting the socialist countries.

A dispatch from Moscow entitled “The Little Dictators”, transmitted by
Tanjug in December 1961, said that following the campaign against
deceivers and falsifiers in the Soviet Union a new campaign against
little dictators began. These little dictators are the local leaders
who behave like lords in enterprises, collective farms and other
institutions, knowing only how to command, and who are completely
detached from the masses. The Yugoslav correspondent divides dictators
into four types: the first includes the bureaucrats; the second — the
speculators; the third type includes people who doubt everything and
who, if they look askance at you, will frame up anything against you
(as was the case of a certain Burkovski, the director of a technical
school in the Ukraine and also a member of the regional committee, who
allegedly hit the woman worker Nina Ostapenko with his fist simply
because she refused to pick cucumbers from state property and carry
them to his home); the fourth type includes the trade-union dictators,
the chairmen of the trade-union committees, who allegedly behave like
real masters over the workers.

A dispatch from Warsaw transmitted by Tanjug in November 1961 under the
heading “After the Rest, to the Psychiater” described a Polish citizen
who was sick and went to have a month of rest. Through this trip, life
in Poland was presented in the darkest colours. The citizen was scolded
by the train conductor because he had no money to pay for the ticket;
he was attacked by salesmen because he refused to buy rotten apples; he
went to get his cloak which he had sent for a cleaning and he found
that the workshop was “closed under repairs”; he went to buy petrol and
he found that the shopkeepers were “drawing up an inventory”; he went
to the restaurant to eat fish and he was told that there was none,
because all fish had been sent to Warsaw; he went to a store to buy a
thermos and he saw the sign “closed”, etc. Thus, according to the
Tanjug correspondent, people in Poland run hither and thither but
nobody meets their requirements, nobody cares for them.

A dispatch from Budapest transmitted by Tanjug in December 1961 under
the heading “The Little Kings of Dogmatism” gives many examples of
abuse of state power allegedly being committed in Hungary by the
so-called “little kings”. For instance, a woman worker was dismissed
only because she did not believe that Yuri Gagarin had flown into outer
space. But the store manager did not stop there. Convinced that there
was “something” in this, he made another inquiry into the question,
drew up a detailed report and out of this “something” he played
behind-the-scene politics. There are many other such instances about
the inclinations of the “little kings” to abuse their position and
state power, Tanjug concluded. It is superfluous to mention its
malicious slanders and onslaughts against China and our country.

All these activities and facts testify only to one thing: that the Yugoslav revisionists remain enemies of socialism.

During 1961 there was an upsurge in the national- liberation movements
of the Latin American, Asian and African peoples, which directed, first
of all, against U.S. imperialism, and they are growing with each
passing day. In this respect, too, U.S. imperialism made use of the
Yugoslav revisionists as a good weapon, concealed under the mask of
“neutrality” and of a “non-aligned country”, to smother the peoples’
movement for freedom, national independence and socialism. In his
speeches during his visit to some African countries, Tito sought to
undermine their confidence in the countries of the socialist camp, to
soften their legitimate hatred for the Washington neo-colonialists, for
U.S. imperialism which is the fiercest enemy of the national-liberation
movements.

At the conference of the non-aligned countries Tito was among the very
few advocates who were isolated at the conference and who sought to
disorientate the peoples of Latin America, Asia and Africa and lead
them astray from their correct path of struggle against colonialism and
imperialism and for freedom and independence. Instead of the struggle
against imperialism and colonialism and for freedom and independence,
they raised the banning of nuclear war as the main issue. How absurd
and ridiculous such an attempt appears in the face of the words of the
Indonesian delegate R. Abdulgani that the main task of the oppressed
peoples is their liberation from the yoke of colonialism, that
“imperialism and colonialism are killing us just the same with
conventional bombs”! At the conference of the non-aligned countries the
voice of the representatives of the African, Asian and Latin American
countries rose forcefully against U.S. imperialism. Only Tito and his
kind dared not unmask the aggressive circles in the United States.

On the Congo question, the Tito clique adopted a hostile attitude
towards the Congolese people. They supported the United States
intervention and considered it a factor that “contributed to the
stabilization of the situation”, as a “very important and valuable
factor”. With police and the army, with clubs, tear gas and cavalry,
they dispersed the Belgrade workers who protested in the streets
against the murder of the great Congolese patriot Patrice Lumumba by
the U.S. imperialists.

The Belgrade revisionist press condemned the nationalization policy
carried out by Fidel Castro’s revolutionary government, saying it was
“too great a swallowing up done all at once”, and made a noise about
“the great difficulties” which the Cuban revolution was allegedly
encountering every day. Regretting the losses which the imperialists
are suffering in Cuba, the Yugoslav revisionist leaders advised them to
make use of more subtle tactics in their intervention in order “not to
risk those United States interests which still remain in Cuba”.

The Belgrade revisionist clique had the impudence to support such a
plan to enslave the Latin American peoples as the “Alliance for
Progress”, which was proclaimed by Kennedy as a path of salvation. They
propagandized that U.S. imperialism “has begun to realize that times
are changing, that the real unity and solidarity of America can be
established only on the basis of equality”, and that imperialism has
already “shown its readiness to settle and correct its mistakes”.

The Yugoslav revisionist leaders seek to conceal from public opinion
the intervention by the U.S. imperialists in Laos, claiming that
“Washington has made a big stride in detaching itself from Dulles’ past
policy”, that Washington desires a “compromise” in settling the Laotian
question “because it is really concerned about peace and neutrality of
Laos”. Moreover, on this issue the revisionists threw off their mask
almost completely and, from the position of supporting imperialism they
proceeded to the position of attack on the peace-loving policy of the
Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, claiming that a
peaceful settlement of the Laotian question “depends on the Soviet
Government” and that the Soviet Union and China should not “take the
change in the United States policy as a sign of weakness”.

Recently, as the Indonesian newspaper Harian Rakiat writes, the
spokesman of the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs one-sidedly
pointed out that the West Irian question should be settled by “peaceful
.means”. But do the imperialists give up their positions peacefully?
This question is answered in the affirmative only by the revisionists,
devoted servants of imperialism. As to Marxist-Leninists and the
peoples suffering under the yoke of the old and new colonialists, they
have already outlined their path, their methods for the settlement of
the national-liberation problem, and this is the path of resolute
struggle to throw off the abhorred yoke. “People may adopt either of
the two attitudes towards imperialism,” the Indonesian newspaper
writes, “namely: either to resist it, or give it a pat on the back,”
the latter being the attitude of the Yugoslav revisionists.

This contrast between the attitude of the Yugoslav revisionists and
that of the peoples who are fighting against the colonialists clearly
shows whom the Yugoslav revisionists are serving, what dangerous
enemies of the national-liberation movement they are.

As a reward for its revisionist, anti-socialist and anticommunist
activities, the Belgrade clique has received from its masters 3,200
million dollars in military and economic “aid”. In 1961 alone, pursuing
the line of consolidating their all-round cooperation with the United
States of America, they concluded a series of agreements on new “loans”
amounting to a total sum of 197.4 million dollars. This much at least
has been published by the Americans themselves.

With great zeal the Belgrade revisionists are equipping their army with
U.S. armaments and are having their officers trained in U.S. military
academies. Thus, as the White House press secretary Pierre Salinger
said on October 17, 1961, the Kennedy Administration, which followed
the policy consistently pursued by the Truman and Eisenhower
Administrations, had given the Yugoslav Government 130 jet fighters of
the F-86 type. According to the American data, which have not been
denied by Tito, from 1952 to 1959 the United States gave Yugoslavia
more than 540 military aircraft.

According to the Associated Press agency, in 1961 many Yugoslav
military pilots underwent training in the United States at the Perin
airforce base at Sherman. As stated by the Perin information officer,
four Yugoslav pilots underwent training at the same course with West
German and Chiang Kai-shek’s pilots. Of course, the Tito clique will
make haste to deny these truths, as they have exposed its true colours.
But what is the use of denials in the face of facts?

It is known that after the conference of the non-aligned countries held
in Belgrade, the U.S. imperialists were disappointed by its results and
“became angry” with Tito because he failed to fulfill his mission of
converting the conference into an anti-communist rostrum. They
expressed their “anger” by spreading stories that the Kennedy
Administration would reconsider the question of aid to Yugoslavia.
These rumours were designed only to give the Tito clique a stronger
push to demand more intense activity and did not really mean suspension
of aid to Yugoslavia.

In reality, on November 25, the U.S. Government made a “self-criticism”
and officially proclaimed that it was prepared to conclude an agreement
to sell American surplus farm products to Yugoslavia.

If we take only some of the U.S. imperialists’ compliments and
appraisals of the Tito clique in 1961 for services rendered to them, it
will be sufficient to see that the Yugoslav revisionists have
discharged their duties well and that they have played their ill-famed
role as splitters of the socialist camp, the communist and workers’
movement and the national-liberation and democratic movements
everywhere in the world.

On October 18, 1961, the U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated at a
press conference that American military aid not only had contributed to
the defence of Yugoslav’s independence in the face of the Soviet bloc,
but as early as 1948 Yugoslavia had also been a source of dissension in
the ranks of international communism.

The newspaper Reynolds News writes that half a million tons of American
wheat is not a very high price to pay for the spreading of the bright
ideas of the Yugoslav Communists. (It is clear that by the bright ideas
of the Yugoslav Communists the imperialists mean the viewpoint of the
Tito clique about the revision of Marxism- Leninism which benefits U.S.
imperialism.)

On December 26, 1961, the U.S. news agency UPI greatly praised the
activity of Tito and his clique who have used every dollar they have
received to the advantage of U.S. imperialism. The agency said, “During
these years changes have occurred in Yugoslavia, which have satisfied
the West. The forcible collectivization of agriculture has been
practically eliminated by the Tito regime. The Yugoslav economy has
been ever more adapted to the Western commerce. There have begun to
appear some aspects of free trade in the industrial branch.”

Any comment on our part would be quite superfluous, for it is difficult
for a third party to speak with more competence than the boss about the
mission and the role he has assigned to his agent.

In conclusion, during 1961 the Belgrade revisionist clique acted, just
as the Moscow Statement rightly characterized them, as renegades from
Marxism-Lenin- ism, as splitters of the camp of socialism and the
communist movement, and as subverters of the unity of all peace-loving
forces and states, in the service of U.S. imperialism. Therefore,
nothing has changed on the part of the Yugoslav revisionists.

In contrast to all these facts and in open opposition to the 1960
Moscow Statement, Khrushchev and his followers continued during 1961 to
advance on the road towards rapprochement, reconciliation and all-round
cooperation with the Yugoslav revisionists, while waging an
unprincipled struggle against the Marxist-Leninist parties which
remained true to the Moscow Statement, such as the Party of Labour of
Albania, under the pretext of fighting against the so-called “Albanian
dogmatism”.

Let us cite only a few facts from the events after the publication of
the Statement, and especially during the year 1961, which testify to
the rapprochement which is being noticed and to which unsparing
publicity is being given in the press and propaganda.

December 23, 1960. A. Gromyko, member of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Minister of Foreign Affairs,
made haste to state at the session of the Supreme Soviet that “it must
be pointed out with satisfaction that on fundamental international
questions our positions are identical”. Since some of the anti-Marxist
and anti-socialist positions of the Yugoslav revisionists towards
different international problems have been briefly examined in the
above, it is superfluous to point out that such an appraisal of
Yugoslav foreign policy and its comparison with the policy of the
Soviet Union is only a bad service rendered to the Leninist policy of
peace pursued by the Soviet state and a good service rendered to the
“independent policy” of “Comrade” Tito.

December 30, 1960. In reply to A. Gromyko’s statement, the Yugoslav
Acting Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said at a press
conference that “Gromyko’s words comply with our viewpoint and
aspirations. On this basis, it is possible to develop mutual relations,
as well as broad international cooperation in the interests of peace
and progress in the world”. So, a month had hardly elapsed after the
publication of the Moscow Statement when the identity of views and
aspirations of the Khrushchev group with those of the Yugoslav
revisionist leaders began to reveal itself.

September 10, 1961. In order to mitigate the anger of the Yugoslav
“comrades”, lest they would take seriously those two pitiful remarks
which were uttered against them in the draft programme of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev himself was quick to tell the
correspondent of the American newspaper New York Times that “we, of
course, consider Yugoslavia to be a socialist country”. Is there a more
brazen violation of the Moscow Statement than this? When did Khrushchev
tell the truth about Yugoslav revisionism, when he signed the Moscow
Statement, or when he spoke to the American correspondent?

October 3, 1961. At a meeting with the Yugoslav ambassador, L.
Brezhnev, member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, solemnly told him that “we have
all the conditions for the development of further all-round
cooperation”. He pointed out with satisfaction and repeated the
Yugoslav ambassador’s words about “Yugoslavia’s determination to
comprehensively develop relations with the Soviet Union”. Time will
show what is hidden behind the words of “comprehensively develop
relations”.

November 10, 1961. At the Plenary Session of the Central Committee of
the Italian Communist Party P. Togliatti said, “We have had contacts
with the Yugoslav Communists too and we maintain mutual friendly
relations. This is not only a necessity resulting from our geographical
position. It is something more. As to the present regime in Yugoslavia,
we are obliged to ask what this regime is. It is not identical with the
one existing in the Soviet Union, or in the people’s democracies. It is
neither a feudal regime nor a capitalist one, nor does it seem to us a
regime which, after having advanced to socialism, is going backwards,
towards forms that have been passed through. Hence the necessity of
becoming acquainted with it, studying it and meditating upon it. It
clearly follows from this how wrong it is to treat Yugoslavia and her
regime as enemies.”

December 5, 1961. D. Kallai, member of the Political Bureau of the
Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party told a West German journalist that
“Yugoslavia is building a socialist social system but the official
Yugoslav policy is revisionist”. They have sunk deeper and deeper! And
the “creative” development of Marxism is endless! According to Kallai,
the revisionists, too, are building socialism. It is by no means
surprising that, by pursuing this “theory”, the imperialists may also
build socialism. And why should the master not build socialism while
his lackey is doing it?

We might quote many other facts and official statements testifying to
the tendency towards rapprochement and reconciliation with the Yugoslav
revisionists which has been noticed in a marked way since the 22nd
Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The rapprochement and reconciliation with the Yugoslav revisionists is
not achieved only through statements and articles in the press and
radio. This rapprochement shows in many directions. One of these is the
exchange of delegations:

January 31, 1961. E. Furtseva, former member of the Presidium of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and
Firyubin, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, gave
a luncheon party in honour of the soloists of the Belgrade opera, A.
Marinkovich and R. Filak. It was attended also by Kuznetsov, Deputy
Minister of Culture. Toasts were exchanged.

February 24, 1961. A Soviet trade delegation led by M. Kuzmin, Deputy
Minister of Foreign Trade, left for Belgrade to conduct talks for a
long-term trade agreement for the years 1961-1962.

May 31, 1961. A delegation of the Yugoslav Metal Workers’ Union arrived in the Soviet Union.

June 10, 1961. A Soviet-Yugoslav agreement regulating the activities of
the Soviet information institutions in Yugoslavia was signed in
Belgrade.

June 16, 1961. The premiere of the Yugoslav film A Piece of the Grey
Sky was shown in Moscow under the cultural cooperation programme. At
the evening party, N. Danilov, Deputy Minister of Culture, spoke of the
popularity of the Yugoslav cinema workers in the Soviet Union. At this
evening party the floor was also given to the Yugoslav ambassador.

October 1, 1961. In Belgrade, the representative of the Soviet
publishing houses held a press conference on the occasion of the
opening of the exhibition of Soviet books in Yugoslavia. On display at
the exhibition, he said, were also the translations of Yugoslav books
printed in 15 languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union in a total
of 6 million copies.

As we are dealing with books, we would like to mention here another
fact about their relations in the field of ideological and political
publications. As announced by the Yugoslav newspaper Politika of
September 15, 1961, the Yugoslav charge d’affaires presented Tito’s
selected works at a ceremony on September 14, 1961 to the Deputy
Minister of Culture of the USSR. Politika did not say for whom this
gift was. Nor did it point out the contribution the selected works made
to the development of Marxism-Leninism. . . .

October 18, 1961. At the invitation of the Soviet trade unions, a
Yugoslav trade union delegation arrived in Moscow for a visit in the
Soviet Union.

November 25, 1961. A delegation of workers from the
educational-cultural institutions run by the Yugoslav trade unions
reported on the impressions of their visit to the Soviet Union where
they went for two weeks at the invitation of the Soviet trade unions.

December 14, 1961. A. Mikoyan had a talk with S.V. Tempo in Moscow.

December 14, 1961. A Yugoslav women’s delegation left for Moscow at the invitation of the Soviet Women’s Committee.

December 20, 1961. TASS announced that a regular session of the
Soviet-Yugoslav Commission on scientific and technical cooperation
concluded in Belgrade. The protocol provides for exchanges of
specialists to become acquainted with one another’s experience in
production.

December 21, 1961. A plan for cultural cooperation between the Soviet
Union and Yugoslavia for the years 1962-1963 were signed in Moscow. The
plan provides, among other things, for the exchange of tourists.
According to TASS, the Soviet Union pledged itself to receive another
20 Yugoslav students. An extension of the cultural cooperation has been
envisaged in general.

January 4, 1962. A photo exhibition showing the outstanding events in
Yugoslavia opened in the House of Friendship with the Peoples of
Foreign Countries in Moscow.

January 5, 1962. A. Kosigin, First Vice-Chairman of the Council of
Ministers of the Soviet Union, received the Yugoslav ambassador and had
a talk with him.

January 8, 1962. N. Patolichev, Minister of Foreign Trade of the Soviet
Union, received V. Gainovich, Vice- Chairman of the Yugoslav Foreign
Trade Committee, with whom he examined some questions relating to
Soviet-Yugoslav trade.

The two countries exchanged many other delegations, of cinema workers,
artists, composers, writers, etc., which have all been given a great
publicity.

The chronicle of exchange of delegations is still increasing, not to
mention here all the agreements that have been concluded on economic
cooperation. All these have been conducted under the slogan of peaceful
coexistence, but in reality they testify to an ever greater
rapprochement of Khrushchev and his group with the Yugoslav
revisionists and to a renunciation of the ideological fight against
them. This is clearly shown also by the fact that all these things have
taken place precisely at a time when pressure has been brought to bear
on the small socialist country, the People’s Republic of Albania, which
is resolutely struggling against imperialism and revisionism.
Unprecedented blockades have been enforced against it in all fields,
the basest slanders and attacks have been and are being delivered
against it, even such measures were resorted to as open calls for
counter-revolution, the closing of the Soviet Embassy in Tirana and the
expulsion of the Albanian Embassy from Moscow.

The tendency of Khrushchev and his followers for a rapprochement with
the Yugoslav revisionists, and their attacks and slanders against the
Party of Labour of Albania and the People’s Republic of Albania at the
22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union have been
acclaimed by the Yugoslav revisionists and their masters, the
imperialists. They have multiplied their activities, thinking that the
day has come for them to undermine the socialist camp, the communist
and workers’ movement and all anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist
movements. They are zealously picking up everywhere the monstrous
slanders and fabrications against the Party of Labour of Albania, the
People’s Republic of Albania and the Albanian people and give them wide
publicity. Tito’s enthusiastic greetings to the 22nd Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union were by no means fortuitous. It is,
in the first place, a manifestation of Khrushchev’s anti-Marxist
attacks on J.V. Stalin’s work and on the Party of Labour of Albania.
Tito declared, “We have seen in the work of the Congress also a
positive course which is now being effectively mirrored in the further
development not only in the Soviet Union, but also in other socialist
countries. We welcome such a course.” Here no explanation is needed at
all, for it is clear that Tito is welcoming Khrushchev’s revisionist
views and praying that they may become the prevailing views in the
Soviet Union and in the other socialist countries, and that his
anti-Marxist and splitting actions may extend ever more, so that the
unity of the socialist countries and of the international communist
movement may be destroyed and revisionism may triumph.

But the Party of Labour of Albania, just as the other Marxist-Leninist
parties, will not depart from the struggle against modern revisionism
and in defence of Marxism- Leninism because by this struggle we defend
the cause of revolution, communism and world peace. Today dark clouds
are hanging over the world. They may darken the sky for some time. They
may cover up the sun, but only temporarily. The sun will not be
concealed, it will shine. The truth of Marxism-Leninism will triumph.

It is now clear that in their revisionist activities for splitting the
socialist camp and undermining the anti-imperialist and
national-liberation movement, the Tito clique has received the active
support of the Khrushchev group, directly or indirectly. This is shown
by the events that occurred during 1961. The exchange of delegations,
the enthusiastic efforts to bring them ever nearer to the Yugoslav
revisionist clique, the frequent statements about “socialist
Yugoslavia”, etc., are mainly dictated by the ideological conceptions
of the Khrushchev group, conceptions which do not differ much from
those of Tito’s revisionist clique.

The rapprochement between the Khrushchev group and the Yugoslav
revisionists has not been achieved and cannot be achieved overnight.
Many factors have contributed and are contributing to this situation,
the principal of these factors being the fear of the Khrushchev group
that they may be openly exposed to the entire international communist
and workers’ movement as supporters of the Yugoslav revisionists and
their ideological comrades. This also accounts for the constant
wavering and the often contradictory attitudes of Khrushchev towards
the activities of the Yugoslav revisionists ever since 1955. The
fundamental line of his attitude, which stems from a revisionist
ideology, has always been a line of rehabilitating the Tito clique, a
line of rapprochement and close cooperation with them. This has found a
clear expression in Khrushchev’s initiative to normalize the relations
with the Yugoslav revisionists as early as May 1955. But later on,
owing to some careless, and obviously hostile and subversive actions on
the part of the Tito clique in different periods (such as their
activity during the Hungarian events, the publication of the Programme
of the YCL, etc.), which aroused the legitimate indignation of
Communists throughout the world, Khrushchev was tactically obliged to
make some gestures against the Yugoslav revisionists, so as to avoid
compromising himself. Experience, however, has shown that all this was
a camouflage and that it was done for show only, for even on such
occasions Khrushchev made haste to orientate the Communists that they
should be “cautious” and “not raise the value” of the Yugoslav
revisionist clique, etc. Typical in this respect is his speech at the
5th Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, in July 1958, in
which he said among other things, “In our struggle for the common cause
we must not devote to the Yugoslav revisionists greater attention than
they deserve. They want their value raised, that people should think
they are the center of the world.... We shall not contribute to the
fanning of passions, to the aggravation of relations. Even in the
situation that has arisen in our relations with the Yugoslav Communist
League it will be useful to preserve a spark of hope, to seek
acceptable forms for some questions.”

The Khrushchev group have always tried to explain this “tolerance” and
“cautiousness” as well as the need for “contacts” with the Yugoslav
revisionists by the argument that on fundamental questions Yugoslavia’s
foreign policy is in accord with that of the Soviet Union and that all
and every rapprochement with it had no ideological, but only a state
character. They even said that “we maintain contacts and are seeking
for normal relations also with the United States of America and West
Germany, let alone with Yugoslavia”. Such arguments are false and they
help Khrushchev to conceal his true features as an ally of Tito and
supporter of revisionism. Their falsity is clearly shown by the
following facts:

First, Yugoslavia’s foreign policy has nothing in common with the
peaceful policy of the Soviet Union. This is clearly indicated in the
Moscow Statement which characterizes the Yugoslav revisionists as
disrupters of the socialist camp and splitters of the
national-liberation movement and of the forces for peace, who carry on
their disrupting and splitting activities under the pretence of
following an extra-bloc policy.

Secondly, the rapprochement of the Khrushchev group with the Tito
clique is mainly of an ideological nature. This is shown by the
declarations that “Yugoslavia is a socialist state”, that “we must
become acquainted with her experience”, that “we must study it,
meditate upon it”, etc. This is testified also by the character of the
contacts that have been and are being established between them. In
reality, under the mask of cooperation in state relations, the Yugoslav
revisionists are seeking to deeply penetrate wherever doors are open to
them, with a view to spreading their revisionist viewpoints, and all
this is being done with the full knowledge of Khrushchev and under his
direct incitation. Experience has shown what a danger the Yugoslav
revisionists pose when doors are opened to them, how they make use of
all and every means to conduct their subversive activities against
socialism and communism. If in the future we do not bar their
activities, this will undoubtedly lead to very harmful consequences for
the Parties and peoples with whom they will find a loophole to
interfere and grounds to act. Those who ignore this fact are actually
to ignore the Moscow Statement of 1960.

Thirdly, the falseness of Khrushchev’s statements is evident also if we
compare his attitude towards the Yugoslav revisionists with the
attitude he has adopted and continues to adopt towards the People’s
Republic of Albania, a socialist country, a member of the socialist
camp and of the Warsaw Treaty, towards the Party of Labour of Albania,
a signatory to the Moscow Statement. With regard to the People’s
Republic of Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania, Khrushchev
violated all and every norm in both Party and state relations. In
fighting our Party of Labour he did not take into account the fact that
he might “raise the value” of the “Albanian dogmatists”, or the fact
that he “maintains relations also with the United States of America and
West Germany, or even with the Tito clique”, or the fact that little
Albania, not by words but by deeds, has resolutely struggled and are
struggling, hand in hand with the Soviet Union and the other socialist
countries, for the triumph of the peaceful policy of the socialist
camp, of the liberation movement of the peoples against imperialism and
revisionism, and of socialism and communism.

Hence it also clearly follows that Khrushchev and his group “want
contact” with the Tito clique, that they are working for a
rapprochement with them and that they close their eyes to the splitting
activities of that clique, because Tito’s revisionist viewpoints
coincide with those of Khrushchev’s on many questions, and because
Khrushchev and Tito are united against socialism and communism by a
common revisionist platform. The Khrushchev group and the Tito clique
have directed all the fire of their traitorous fight against the Party
of Labour of Albania and other Parties and all true Marxist-Leninists
who stand on correct Marxist-Leninist positions and are consistently
fighting against modern revisionism.

The past year shows that the impetuous rapprochement of the Khrushchev
group with the Yugoslav revisionists has been coupled with the fiercest
attacks on the Party of Labour of Albania or, as they now say, on
Albanian “dogmatism”. This is not accidental. In his stand towards the
Yugoslav revisionists, Khrushchev has had various tactical waverings
since 1955. He has been unable to attain all at once his purpose of
having complete rapprochement with the Tito clique. The main obstacle
has been the resistance of the Communist and

Workers’ Parties in various countries, the resistance of the Communists
who are true to Marxism-Leninism, who, regardless Khrushchev’s
“advice”, have always considered revisionism as the main danger to the
communist movement, as is stated in the Moscow Declaration of 1957 and
the Moscow Statement of 1960, and considered Yugoslav revisionism as
its most concentrated and aggressive manifestation.

The Party of Labour of Albania, which has been waging an irreconcilable
ideological struggle against Yugoslav revisionism, is one of the
Parties that have obstructed Khrushchev’s rapprochement with the
Yugoslav revisionists. This was noticed from the very outset by both
the Khrushchev group and the Tito clique. To reduce our Party to
silence, they have resorted to all kinds of measures and pressure.
Khrushchev and his group told us, “You are raising the value of the
Yugoslav revisionists in the eyes of imperialism,” “You are quarrelsome
and hot-blooded,” “You are not waging a principled struggle, you need
tact and skill,” “You want to wrest the banner of the struggle against
revisionism,” and so on and so forth. But our Party, convinced of its
correct path, did not stop in its activity for the defence of the
purity of Marxism-Leninism.

Khrushchev’s waverings and the obstacles on his road towards a
rapprochement were understood also by Tito, who more than once warned
Khrushchev and even foolishly suggested to him the way to follow. Let
us recall here Tito’s speech of November 1956, soon after the
counter-revolutionary coup in Hungary was put down. Tito said among
other things, “We have said that it was not only a question of the
personality cult, but of a system which had made it possible to pursue
a personality cult, that herein lay the roots of the issue, that this
was the thing to be fought, and that it was the most difficult thing to
do.” Tito added, “These roots lie in the bureaucratic apparatus, in the
methods and attitude, in ignoring the role and aspirations of the
working masses, in Enver Hoxhas, Shehus and various other leaders of
some western and eastern Parties, who resist democratization and the
decisions of the 20th Congress and who have greatly contributed to the
consolidation of Stalin’s system and are seeking at present to revive
it and make it prevail. Herein lie the roots and this is what must be
mended.” This call was reiterated later. Tito repeated this after the
22nd Congress, in his Skopje speech, apparently to advise Khrushchev
not to stop, but to carry to the end his hostile activity against the
Party of Labour of Albania. In this speech Tito said that the Albanian
leaders Hoxha and Shehu pose a great danger to peace in this part of
the world, that they want to make troubles and create a new, dangerous
hotbed of war,... fighting against the progressive course which is
being pursued in the Soviet Union, that there can be no better fate for
the Albanian people as long as such leaders as Hoxha and Shehu remain
in power.

It must be said that the advice of “Comrade” Tito has met with a positive response in Khrushchev’s anti- Marxist activity.

The course of up-to-date events has shown that contact with the Tito
clique has become an interesting and attractive object for the U.S.
imperialists as well as for the Khrushchev group. It serves as an
automatic indication of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable
to the one or the other side. And this is explained by the fact that
the Tito clique maintains as good relations with the U.S. imperialists,
whom it faithfully serves, as with the Khrushchev group, with whom it
is bound by the same ideals.

* * *

The above are some facts witnessed by the year 1961 which most
effectively prove two main things: First, Yugoslav revisionism has not
changed at all, it remains what it always has been. The evaluation made
by the 1960 Moscow Statement with regard to Yugoslav revisionism and to
the task to further unmask it remains fully valid. Secondly, Khrushchev
and his group are consciously seeking to draw nearer daily to the
Yugoslav revisionists and to work in close cooperation with them to
split the camp of socialism and to destroy the international communist
and workers’ movement.

As to our Party of Labour, it has stood and still resolutely stands on
the position of the 1960 Statement of 81 Communist and Workers’
Parties. It considers that a resolute and uncompromising struggle must
be waged against revisionism, until its complete destruction. Any
slackening of revolutionary vigilance against it, any weakening of the
principled fight against it, as Khrushchev and his followers are
striving for, under whatever pretext, will inevitably lead to the
revival and invigoration of the revisionist trends which heavily damage
our great cause. Without ruthlessly unmasking revisionism, and in the
first place the Belgrade revisionist clique, we cannot properly unmask
imperialism.